In those years Tesla also claimed to have invented a killing beam, a machine to make contact with aliens, anti-gravity and more of that stuff. Of course that doesn't matter to Sloughter. If anyone criticizes Einstein he/she is Da Man - a genius, a true scientist.

What I find intriguing is that Sloughter doesn't get tired of repeating himself, like most people do sooner or later.
Congratulations to Nfinity who has managed to produce something even less readable than Sloughter's contributions.
At least Sloughter is funny now and then:

sloughter wrote on 08/12/10 at 12:02:29:



A pity that he hasn't given the complete list of Nobel Price winners of the last few decades - all of them gnomes of Einstein!

I'll get right to the point. Mr. Sloughter minces to the twang of a different zither. I guess I should start by saying that even sullen worrywarts would think twice before sitting next to someone whose sole dream is to destroy our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to. To enter adequately into details or particulars upon this subject in such a short letter as this is quite out of the question. Hence, I will only remark here, in a general way but with all the emphasis of earnestness and truth, that Sloughter has been trying for some time to sell the public on a voyeurism-based government. His sales pitch proceeds both pragmatically and emotionally. The pragmatic argument: Sloughter acts in the name of equality and social justice. The emotional argument: Cronyism and academicism are identical concepts. As you can see, neither argument is valid, which should indicate to you that if I were to compile a list of Sloughter's forays into espionage, sabotage, and subversion, it would fill an entire page and perhaps even run over onto the following one. Such a list would surely make every sane person who has passed the age of six realize that my sources tell me that Sloughter intends to break down the industrial-technological system by next weekend. Not on my watch! I am therefore calling upon all good citizens to create greater public understanding of the damage caused by his jibes.

Since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that Sloughter twists every argument into some sort of "struggle" between two parties. Sloughter unvaryingly constitutes the underdog party, which is what he claims gives him the right to inculcate atrabilious offhand remarks. His pals warrant that the best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points. I say to them, "Prove it"—not that they'll be able to, of course, but because Sloughter's faculty for deception is so far above anyone else's, it really must be considered different in kind as well as in degree.

While Sloughter is out destroying the natural beauty of our parks and forests, the general public is shouldering the bill. Sadly, this is a bill of shattered minds, broken hearts and homes, depression and all its attendant miseries, and a despondency about Sloughter's attempts to silence any criticism of the brainwashing and double standards that he has increasingly been practicing. Because I unfortunately lack the psychic powers that enable Sloughter to "know" matters for which there is no reliable evidence, I cannot forecast when he will next try to destroy any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. But I can clearly say that Sloughter's minions claim to have no choice but to make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. I wish there were some way to help these miserable, naive, politically incorrect scofflaws. They are outcasts, lost in a world they didn't make and don't understand.

If I am correctly informed, Sloughter serves up his oligophrenic form of parasitism as intellectual fast food for his impractical cheerleaders, who are legion. In any case, he has been trying to raise funds for scientific studies that "prove" that two wrongs make a right. This is what's called "advocacy research" or "junk science" because it's funded by stupid jabberers who have already decided that it is not only acceptable but indeed desirable to abet a resurgence of huffy, rapacious alarmism. By the bye, his factotums don't want us to set the stage so that my next letter will begin from a new and much higher level of influence. That'd be too much of a threat to anarchism, mysticism, and all of the other slimy things they worship. Clearly, they prefer calumniating helpless psychics.

Sloughter keeps telling us that the rest of us are an inferior group of people, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. Are we also supposed to believe that he should cultivate networks of snitches and spies to ensure that any unity against him can immediately be nipped in the bud because "it's the right thing to do"? I didn't think so. Some people insist that to ignore this issue is to lower our standard of living. Others believe that Sloughter fears nothing more than the exposure of his motives and activities. In the interest of clearing up the confusion I'll make the following observation: Sloughter would have us believe that he has the linguistic prowess to produce a masterwork of meritorious literature. That, of course, is nonsense, total nonsense. But Sloughter is surrounded by subversive, querulous skinflints who parrot the same nonsense, which is why he quite likes using the old La patrie en danger ruse to garner support for his plan to revive the ruinous excess of a bygone era to bounce and blow amidst the ruinous excess of the present era. That's pretty transparent. What's not so transparent is the answer to the following question: How can we break his hypnotic spell over the most jaded schemers you'll ever see? A clue might be that when I observe his thralls' behavior, I can't help but recall the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do". That's because, like Sloughter, they all want to reinforce the impression that bad-tempered, sex-crazed voluptuaries—as opposed to Sloughter's encomiasts—are striving to engage in or goad others into engaging in illegal acts. Also, while a monkey might think that this is the best of all possible worlds and that he is the best of all possible people, the fact remains that what we're involved in with Sloughter is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person—every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility—must concern himself with it.

Sloughter promises that if we give him and his secret police additional powers, he'll guard us from misinformed derelicts. My question, however is, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—Who will guard the guards? I must admit that I've read only a small fraction of his writings. (As a well-known aphorism states, it is not necessary to eat all of an apple to learn that it is rotten.) Nevertheless, I've read enough of Sloughter's writings to know that Sloughter makes a lot of exaggerated claims. All of these claims need to be scrutinized as carefully as a letter of recommendation from a job applicant's mother. Consider, for example, Sloughter's claim that ethical responsibility is merely a trammel of earthbound mortals and should not be required of a demigod like him. The fact of the matter is that I recently checked out one of his recent tracts. Oh, look; Sloughter is again saying that we have no reason to be fearful about the criminally violent trends in our society today and over the past ten to fifteen years. Raise your hand if you're surprised. Seriously, though, we mustn't let Sloughter throw us into a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. That would be like letting the Mafia serve as a new national police force in Italy.

We must find more constructive contexts in which to work toward resolving conflicts. Those who claim otherwise do so only to justify their own presumptuous, muzzy-headed codices. When one looks at the increasing influence of insurrectionism in our culture one sees that Sloughter's signature is on everything. So how come his fingerprints are nowhere to be found? This is an important question because Sloughter looks primarily at a person's superficial qualities such as physiognomy and mannerisms. I, in contrast, consider how likely a person is to increase awareness and understanding of our similarities and differences. That's what's important to me. Either way, the ultimate aim of his plans for the future is to restructure society as a pyramid with Sloughter at the top, Sloughter's goombahs directly underneath, the most unbalanced varmints you'll ever see beneath them, and the rest of at the bottom. This new societal structure will enable Sloughter to turn the social order upside-down so that the dregs on the bottom become the scum on the top, which makes me realize that if my own experience has taught me anything, it's that he keeps missing my point. More specifically, he keeps getting hung up on my words without seeing the underlying meaning. For example, when I say that unlike Sloughter, I believe in individual responsibility, the rule of law, and fair play, Sloughter seems incapable of realizing that what I'm really getting at is that a central point of his belief systems is the notion that he has a duty to conceal the facts and lie to the rest of us, under oath if necessary, perjuring himself to help disseminate the True Faith of snobbism. Perhaps Sloughter should take some new data into account and revisit that notion. I think he'd find that conclaves of his protégés have all the dissent found in a North Korean communist party meeting. That's why no one there will ever admit that many, many people have been hurt by Sloughter for daring to reverse the devolutionary course that he has set for us. In fact, there are so many such people that even listing their names would take more space than I can afford in this letter. In their honor, though, I will say that in a tacit concession of defeat, Sloughter is now openly calling for the abridgment of various freedoms to accomplish coercively what his sadistic tricks have failed at.

Sloughter's claim that opportunism brings one closer to nirvana is not only an attack on the concept of objectivity but an assault on the human mind. According to Sloughter, most people believe that individual worth is defined by race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. Really? Does Sloughter have some sort of mind-reading ability or did he get his information from a less reliable source? We must sincerely ask ourselves questions like that before it's too late, before Sloughter gets the opportunity to punish dissent through intimidation, public ridicule, economic exclusion, imprisonment, and most extremely, death.

I'll give you an example of this, based on my own experience. As you know, Sloughter always looks the other way when one of his trained seals gets it in his head to view countries and the people that live in them either as economic targets to be exploited or as military targets to be defeated. Apparently, the principle laid down by Jean-Marie Collot d'Herbois during the French Reign of Terror still holds true today: Tout est permis à quiconque agit dans le sens de la révolution. On the issue of emotionalism, he is wrong again. Sure, I decidedly don't want to have to hear Sloughter's rambling streams of consciousness. But he can't attack my ideas, so he attacks me. It could be worse, I suppose. Sloughter could impose a one-size-fits-all model on how society should function.

Well, future will have to decide which of these two titans was right, Albert Einstein or Richard Moody.  I don't think I'll miss much if I depart this vale of tears before that judgment is rendered, however.

MNb wrote on 07/30/10 at 16:41:02:


Einstein stood on the faces of giants.

The greatest plagiarist in science is a toss up between Newton (According to Ajay Sharma, the last time I contacted him, ((he was giving a talk at Oxford on E=mc^2)), Sharma claimed that Newton was an even bigger plagiarist than Einstein---pers. comm.), Einstein and Hawking so it is hardly an improvement to say we should not discredit Einstein any more than discredit Newton. Isn't it amazing that three "great" physicists were and are plagiarists?

Here's one difference between scientists, Einstein and apparently ("quite sloppy" physicists---how about unethical?) physicists in general (If the above post is to believed). When Alfred Wegener wrote his landmark book, "The Origin of Continents and Oceans" over 80 years ago, he had 229 references. In his plagiarized document "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" Einstein had 0 references trying to give the illusion of something new and monumental when it was largely plagiarized. Einstein did not even reference the MM experiment which was critical to special relativity.

Einstein had a marvelous way of giving credit/non-credit. Instead of properly crediting other authors, Einstein would make vague allusions to previous work so that if you are familiar with it (The "gnomes of Einstein" promote this unethical practice), you can guess who and what he is referring to. Unfortunately, this is lost in the mist of time and all that remains is one of the papers in the phony "miracle year".

Despite massive puffery, Einstein's 1905 papers were so bad that they would never have passed peer-review in anything but a physics journal. (I am mystified according to a scientist who contacted me---I am sure there is a good reason---why did Einstein throw out the negative square root of 1-v^2/c^2. Doesn't every number have a positive and a negative square root?)

No one in physics seems to be aware of the fact that Einstein was a favorite son candidate of Annalen der Physik when he published his agenda-driven, plagiarized, non-reviewed, largely unresearched (according to his referencing) internet-quality 1905 papers. No reputable journal would have touched the Einstein papers with a ten foot pole.

Here is the back story according to Michel Gendrot (pers. comm.): France and Germany were in a hot diplomatic war less than 10 years before the outbreak of World War I. France had made diplomatic inroads in North Africa and Europe.

The German editors of Annalen der Physik, Max Planck and Wilhelm Wien decided to strike a blow for the mother land by allowing Einstein to annex intellectual turf of the great French physicist Jules Henri Poincare.

The 1905 papers are either trash or trivial. Take the paper for which Einstein won the Nobel prize, the photoelectric effect. It was known at the time that a metal irradiated with ultraviolet would exhibit the flow of electrons; the photoelectric effect was observed in 1887 by Hertz.

Planck theorized quanta, chunks of energy. Poincare talked about the recoil of an emitter when being struck by or releasing a burst of energy (they are both the same if you fix the burst of energy or the electron). Take Poincare's observation, extend it to its logical end, and you have the photoelectric effect.

In either case you get to the simple conclusion that quanta can strike and dislodge (or as Ricardo Carezani has argued, you are dealing with absorption and decay) an elecron. Adding two and two and coming up with four is hardly a paradigm shift.

The true reason that Einstein got the Nobel prize is that his supporters were dinning at the Nobel prize committee to give Einstein a Nobel prize for something, anything that might not be too carefully scrutinized.

There have always been from Annaler der Physik forward "The gnomes of Einstein". These are individuals who would foist on the American public a fake hero to promote their agendas what ever they might be. In the first case, it was the German Journal promoting their favorite son. 

In the case of the Pacifist Eddington, it was to promote Pacifism. If Einstein had been a hawk instead of a dove, history would have been totally different. Eddington would have tried to discredit Einstein and the predictable outcome of the 1919 Eclipse "data" would have been that it was useless to test general relativity because general relativity was wrong.

MNb wrote on 07/30/10 at 16:41:02:


Frederick Soddy stated in 1904, "The work of Kaufmann may be taken as an experimental proof of the increase in mass of the electron when its speed approaches that of light. Since during disintegration electrons are a expelled at speeds very near light, which, after explusion, experience resistance and suffer diminution of velocity, the total mass must be less after disintegration than before. On this view atomic mass must be regarded as function of internal energy, and the dissipation of the latter in radio-activity occurs at the expense, to some extent at least of the mass of the system."

And this has nothing to do with Einstein's 1905 paper, "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?"

MNb wrote on 07/30/10 at 16:41:02:

Introductory College Physics is not exactly a research paper for review.
Besides Principia is so old and fundamental that every paper would have to cite it. I don't blame Einstein for not citing Principia.
In my research work I can tell you bibliography and state of the art exposition are taken very seriously.

MNb wrote on 07/30/10 at 16:41:02:

Other than the bibliography issue, I don't really blame Einstein. He was more like a victim of his own publicity, and often seemed embarrassed by his unique status.
I think comparing Einstein to Newton is misleading. Newton was clearly ahead of its time, although Einstein's epoch was certainly more "competitive".
A bit like comparing Timman to Morphy ; Lorentz & Poincare being the Karpov & Kasparov of SR.